Image credit: Simon & Schuster

"How my family created the world's most dangerous man" is the subtitle of Dr. Mary Trump's new book, Too Much and Never Enough.

The book is 211 pages of exactly that: Mary's retelling of how her family, starting with her grandparents Fred and Mary (often called "Gam"), who viewed their children as assets in service to their parents (Dr. Trump labeled Fred as a high-functioning sociopath) ¹ and cared even less for their grandchildren; it's the story of how using success as the measure of favor fucked up four kids, leaving them incapable of love and of being loved; leaving them without compassion for each other, much less for others outside of the Trump family.

Mary's father, Freddy, the oldest of the four, left the family construction and real estate businesses and was abused for it for years. He died at 42 of heart failure combined with alcohol and depression. After his death, Mary got front row seats to how unbalanced her uncles, aunts, and even her grandmother really were.

Mary earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies. So, her approach to writing Too Much isn't just from the perspective of a descendant of Fred Trump — it's also from the perspective of a professional analyst:

I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist — he meets all nine criteria established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).... A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others.... Donald may also meet some of the criteria for dependent personality disorder, the hallmarks of which include an inability to make decisions or take responsibility, discomfort with being alone, and going to excessive lengths to obtain support from others.... He may have a long undiagnosed learning disability that for decades has interfered with his ability to process information.²

The book is not cold and clinical; it is a story of three generations of the Trump family, and the dysfunction that was passed down from Mary's grandparents to Donald's generation and to Mary's. Much emphasis is placed on Freddy because he was the working model for Donald and his siblings: Success is what mattered to Fred; failure was weakness, and the weak were cast out:

The only reason Donald escaped the same fate [as Freddy] is that his personality served his father's purpose. That's what sociopaths do: they co-opt others and use them toward their own ends — ruthlessly and efficiently, with no tolerance for dissent or resistance.³

Donald, motivated by fear after seeing the abuse his older brother Freddy received when he underperformed, invented ways to stay in Fred's good graces, and to dismiss his neglect.

Donald knew, because he had seen it with Freddy, that failure to comply with his father's rules was punished by severe and often public humiliation, so he continued to adhere to them even outside of his father's purview.... Donald's growing arrogance, in part a defense against his feelings of abandonment and an antidote to his lack of self-esteem, served as a protective cover for his deepening insecurities.... Donald's problem was that the combative, rigid persona he developed [as a result] cut him off from real human connection. ⁴

This was the start of years and years of being bankrolled by Fred. Despite his ineptitude, Donald had qualities that Fred found useful and worthy of investment.

Fred Trump came to validate, encourage, and champion the things about Donald that rendered him essentially unloveable and that were in part the direct result of Fred's abuse. ⁵

Michael Cohen's DISLOYAL sort of explains the "whats" of Donald Trump's actions and inactions, while Mary L. Trump explains the "whys." Mary makes it very easy to see how particularly events from Donald's childhood made him the soulless chrometophile he is today --

Though Fred's business was built on the back of government financing, he loathed paying taxes and would do anything to avoid doing so.... Fred was neither modest nor humble. Early in his career, he had lied about his age in order to appear more precocious. H had had a propensity for showmanship, and he often trafficked in hyperbole — everything was "great," "fantastic," and "perfect." ⁶

— just as Michael makes it easy to see how events from his childhood made him so easily charmed into doing the nasty things he did on Donald's behalf for so many years. I wish I'd read Mary's book first.

If there's any suggestion I could make to the publisher, it would be to add some sort of org chart at the start of the book to help people keep names straight — Fred, Freddy, Mary, Mary, Maryanne — had I drawn one, I would likely have referred to it often. Perhaps that's more a reflection of how bad I am with names than anything else.

 

 

¹ p. 24
² pp. 12-13
³ p. 43
⁴ pp. 43-44, 51
⁵ p. 27
⁶ pp. 35-36

Image credit: Skyhorse Publishing

Michael Cohen's DISLOYAL accomplishes two things, quite handily: It offers Cohen's observations of Donald Trump and his family, of course — observations about what motivates them and what their family dynamic was like; but perhaps just as important is the insight it offers into how Mr. Cohen found himself in service to Donald Trump, how his service changed him and impacted his relationship with his family, and how he ultimately realized he needed to change his tune and leave the Trump Organization. I think it's this matter that primarily holds my interest.

I really don't want to spoil anything here. DISLOYAL is an engrossing and quick read. It is ultimately a tale of how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the ruinous chase to achieve it.

Personally, I feel the careful reader may gain some valuable insight into recent events of the Trump Administration. Not necessarily the events themselves, nor the immediate motivations — everybody knows Trump's only interests are money and power. I'm talking about deeper motives, the kinds of insights Mr. Cohen provides from working for — as in, sharing address books, first-call-in-the-morning, last-call-at-night working for — Donald Trump for over ten years. Mr. Cohen also provides some insight into other shady characters we heard a lot about in the press, and read about in other books.

I quite like this book. I feel like Mr. Cohen has provided a framework within which Donald Trump and his actions may be viewed and understood.

Yes, it's everything you thought; but it's also more that you didn't.

Image credit: Simon & Schuster

In Chapter Two of Bolton's The Room Where it Happened, John Bolton describes his earliest days in the role of National Security Adviser for the Trump Administration in April 2018, and working to create a multinational coalition to respond to Syria's chemical attack in Douma. He also describes how Secretary of Defense James Mattis (GEN, USMC, RET) essentially framed his favored option as the only option for the coalition to act upon:

I called an NSC staff meeting for six forty-five a.m. Monday morning to see where we stood [in assessing the Assad regime's actions and developing US options in response], and to assess what roles if any Russia and Iran might have played.¹

The... NSC staff meeting confirmed my — and what seemed to be Trump's— belief that the Douma strike required a strong near-term military response.... I called Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at 8:05 a.m. He believed Russia was our real problem.... Mattis and I discussed possible responses to Syria's attack, and said he would be supplying "light, medium and heavy" options for the President's consideration, which I thought was the right approach.... I sensed, over the phone, that Mattis was reading from a prepared text.²

Through the week, more information on the attacks came in, and I spent considerable time reviewing this data.... Proof of the Assad regime's chemical-weapons usage was increasingly clear in public reporting... The second Syria Principals Committee meeting convened at one thirty and again consisted largely of the various agencies reporting on their developing planning and activity, all consistent with a strong response. I soon realized Mattis was our biggest problem. He hadn't produced any targeting options for the NSC or for White House Counsel Don McGahn, who needed to write an opinion on the legality of whatever Trump ultimately decided. From long, unhappy experience, I knew what was going on here. Mattis knew where he wanted Trump to come out militarily, and he also knew that the way to maximize the likelihood of his view's prevailing was to deny information to others who had a legitimate right to weigh in. It was simple truth that not presenting options until the last minute, making sure that those options were rigged in the "right" direction, and then table-pounding, delaying, and obfuscating as long as possible were the tactics by which a savvy bureaucrat like Mattis could get his way.³

While briefing Trump for a later call with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, I stressed that we had the right formula: (1) a proposed three-way attack option with France and Britain, not just a unilateral strike as in 2017; (2) a comprehensive approach, using political and economic as well as military means, combined with effective messaging to explain what we were doing and why; and (3) a sustained — not just one-shot — effort. ⁴

With a full NSC meeting... coming that afternoon, I also told Trump wer ere essentially being sandbagged by Mattis on the range of target options.... The Pentagon's proposed response to Syria's chemical-weapons attack was far weaker than it should have been, largely because Mattis had stacked the options presented to Trump in ways that left little real choice.... Mattis was recommending to strike only chemical-weapons related targets, even options Trump and others had asked about had not been included. Moreover, Mattis said without qualitification that causing Russian casualties would mean we would be at war with Russia, nonwithstanding our efforts to avoid such casualties and the Dunford-Gerasimov conversation [(a phone conversation between Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford and his counterpart in Russia, explaining the US' plan, precisely to prevent Russian casualities)]....Mattis was looking for excuses to not to do much of anything, but he was wrong tactically and strategically.⁵

Even if the President had decided on the optimal strike, the decision-making process was completely unacceptable. We'd experienced a classic bureaucratic ploy by a classic bureaucrat, structuring the options and information to make only his options look acceptable in order to get his way.... I was satisfied I had acted as an honest broker, but Mattis had been playing with marked cards. He knew how Trump responded in such situations far better than I did.... I had been outmaneuvered by an expert bureaucratic operator.⁶

Bolton goes on to say that ultimately, although the strike went well (such as it was), it was still far shy of the retaliation Bolton wanted; ultimately, it did nothing to deter Syria — Assad struck civilian populations again in May, 2019.⁷

Secretary Mattis resigned in December 2018 over differences with the Administration on its Syria policy.

Endnotes

¹p. 45.
²p. 46.
³pp. 50-51.
⁴p. 52
⁵pp. 53-54
⁶p. 56
⁷p. 60

Image credit: Public Affairs Books

I'm only a few pages in, and The Empty Throne has already impressed, with the best description of Trumpism I've read yet. Framed against the rules based new world order the US championed after World War II, and how it is failing to maintain in the context of the 21st century globalization:

The rapid growth in the movement of goods, money, people, and ideas across borders -- globalization, as it came to be called — produced more problems and at a faster rate than national governments could handle. International institutions seemed stuck in the Cold War, unable to grapple with these new transnational challenges.... American leadership ... hoped to get "responsible stakeholders" [as allies] who would gradually take on more responsibilities while still deferring to Washington's lead. They instead got countries that often preferred free riding on Washington's efforts or championing their own ideas for improvements to the rules-based order.... Donald Trump recognized many of the problems bedeviling America's role in the world.... But unlike all of his predecessors since Truman, he didn't see global leadership as the solution to what ailed America. To the contrary. He saw it as the problem. America's alliance committments had, in his view, required the United States to "pay billions — hundreds of billions of dollars to supporting other countries that are in theory wealthier than we are." America's trade policies had "de-industrialized America, uprooting our industry, and stripped bare towns like Detroit and Baltimore." ... What Trump was offering was a return to a foreign policy based the logic of competition and domination.... Trump's first year and a half in office sent an unmistakeable message. He had no interest in leading America's friends and allies. He was looking to beat them. His was not a win-win world, but a world of winners and losers.... Trump was comfortable abdicating American leadership because he saw no value in it — just costs.

I've distilled for you what I found to be the most level and unbiased description of the president's foreign policy I've seen.

My Comment

I find this important and amazing insight, because the president's approach to government seems nearly perfectly reflected in how he operates with politicians over Twitter. He has nothing... presidential... to say to anyone who isn't aboard the Trump Train. All he has for them are insults and threats: techniques of domination.

The book quoted him from, presumably, The Art of the Deal (emphasis mine): "You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win," [Trump] once wrote. "That is a bunch of crap. In a great deal you win — not the other side. You crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself."

On Twitter, almost nightly, Trump caws at any he perceives as an opponent.



"Crooked Hillary" Clinton. "Leakin' James Comey". "Lyin' Ted" Cruz (a fellow Republican, but a political opponent early in the 2012 race). The list goes on. This isn't about competition. Competition does not include ad hominem attacks.

It's about domination. Everything he does is about domination. Why was he so proud to shut down the government for a month? Domination. Why are we headed for another shutdown? Domination. He is incapable of compromise; win-win is anathema. He's wired only for the great deal, and for crushing the opposition.

Image credit: Public Affairs Books

The subtitle drew me to this book: "America's Abdication of Global Leadership."

Image credit: Simon & Schuster

One thing I've learned in an annual review of my posts is that I've stepped up my reading game since our country went to shi— I mean, since the dawn of the current administration.

Today's bookstore impulse buy is Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America, written by Seth Abramson and published by Simon & Schuster in 2018.

As soon as I get this post published, I'm going to curl up with a couple of fingers of bourbon and dive into this book.

Image credit: Penguin Press

If I had to characterize Gen. Hayden's The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies as a food, or a food component, I'd say it's bran: it's meant for more mature audiences, and you don't eat it because it's tasty; you eat it because it's good for you.

Also, too much at once can become hard to chew.

To give you a good sense of the kind of book this is, fully 1/3 of it is end notes and index. My kindle showed I was 66% complete when I reached the afterword.

As Advertised

Gen. Hayden's book is exactly what it says it is: a study of executive level politics and associated events, starting late in the 2016 presidential election cycle and moving through to 2018, studying their impact on the US Intelligence Community (IC) — particuarly at its senior levels — and on national sentiment.

Gen. Hayden meticulously and measuredly recounts and addresses the events, actions and accusations that impacted the credibility and distinguished careers of IC leadership.

"Rejecting a fact-based intelligence assessment - not because of compelling contrarian data, but because it was inconsistent with a preexisting worldview or because it was politically inconvenient— is the stuff of idological authoritarianism, not pragmatic democracy."

But he also offers his views on world events not directly tied to the Trump Administration. On North Korea, which Gen. Hayden viewed as "the toughest intelligence target on earth," and "a pathetic, pathological, and truly irritating little gangster state", he writes:

No doubt Pyongyang would use the occasion [of denuclearization talks] to extort more assistance from the global community, and such an arrangement would be as fragile as it would be distasteful. There would always be the danger of the North Koreans cheating. . . And, despite charges that this is an irrational regime, this North Korea would truly be irrational to give up its current weapons entirely.They have seen what happened to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Mummar Gaddafi's Libya when these weapons were not within reach."

And, on the Iran nuclear deal:

The president refused to certify the [Iran nuclear] deal, but not because the Iranians materially breached the JCPOA. He simply declared that the agreement was no longer in the strategic interests of the United States (which Senator Corker's 2015 bill allowed him to do), dutifully bashed the Iranians, and then, despite the tough rhetoric, declined to do much more, other than effectively putting the Iranians on notice that the nuclear deal would not inhibit him in responding to Tehran's aggression elsewhere. In effect, he was telling the Iranians, "If you want to break the deal, go ahead and break the deal. The deal's not that important to me." That had the effect of freeing the United States to go after all the other things the Iranians were doing, but for now, little would change. . . . My sense was that the president had gotten to make his speech, fulfill a campaign promise, and publicly dissociate himself from another key element of his predecessor's legacy.

And, on Russian involvement in Syria:

Russia certainly has a terrorist problem, and Moscow was certainly bombing in Syria, but it had not really been bombing ISIS. Russian strikes were carefully coordinated with the fire and movement of Assad's forces to expand Syrian government control against the rebel opposition, including factions armed and supported by the United States. Russia's goals in Syria were more about regime survival, Russian spheres of influence, and East-West competition than they were about jihadists.

In general (no pun intended), I found Gen. Hayden's perspective to be similar to FBI Director Comey's, in that he'd make observations, compare them with the historical norm, offer rationale as to why the norm is the established norm, then watch the fallout and deal with it as best he could. It's difficult to take a "not my circus, not my monkeys" approach when you're talking about the DOJ, the IC, or the executive branch of the federal government — particularly when men like Hayden and Comey have spent their lives supporting the cause and working tirelessly to do the right thing. Though Gen. Hayden's book brought more of a world view to the matter, certain topics regarding the Trump Administration were common between them: President Trump's demand for fealty ("loyalty" is part of the title of Comey's book), his penchant for "going with his gut," his addictions to "divisive use" of social media and to Fox network infotainment programming, and "his challenged relationship with the truth."

With . . . a president who has imposed an overpowering cult of loyalty on his administration, the ghost of politicization is always lingering close by for sincere but conflicted senior officials.

It has also become the habit of President Trump, drained of his moral authority by repeated untruths, to rely on that of his key subordinates. And in so doing, he adds the erosion of personal reputation to the damage he is doing to the institutions of government.

In the chapter titled "The Future of Truth," Gen. Hayden referred to the president as "spontaneous, instinctive, ahistorical, and transactional;" he later offered in summary, "Donald Trump does not appeal to 'the better angels of our nature.'"

A friend of mine, a security veteran like myself, told me that the [Trump Administration] reminded him of an upside-down duck. Rather than a visible calm above the surface while paddling like hell beneath it, the administration is visibly frenetic (often stimulated by the president's tweets), but there has been less evidence of much going on beneath the surface in terms of developing an overarching, coherent strategy.

Hayden is not entirely critical of the Trump Administration. He is careful to note there were some events with respect to the Middle East and which he thought were handled relatively well because swift military action was taken when needed (you'd think this might appeal to a Four-Star Air Force General).

Why this book appealed to me

The book appealed to me specifically because Gen. Hayden is an IC professional, and had front row seats to each of the events he recounts. Gen. Hayden offered a reasoned perspective and especially shined when recounting the complexity of different "problems" (an IC term referring to international situations requiring study; "the Syria problem", "the Iran problem," et cetera) sensitivity to which the new executive hadn't yet acquired.

Perhaps the most enlightening information presented was the work of an analyst named Clint Watts, who discovered the Russian disinformation operations over social media back in 2014, and correctly deduced they would attempt a campaign against the United States during the 2016 election cycle. Watts' analysis of ISIS' use of social media for recruting operations enabled him and his team to observe connections between a Syrian/Iranian troll network and Russian social media accounts. Analysis of these links convinced him that Russia was actively operating a disinformation campaign over modern social media platforms. By 2015, Watts noted the Russians were beginning to target the US "by grabbing any divisive social issue they could identify", and found that Twitter and Facebook were ideal platforms for these operations because of our tendencies toward insular groups with similar views: "With tailored news feeds . . . voters see 'only stories and opinions suiting their preferences and biases — ripe condition for Russian disinformation campaigns."

Finally, I rather enjoy the double-entendre of the book's title. "The Assault on Intelligence" can be understood both in the sense that the IC was, and still is, being bullied by the executive branch of the federal government, and in the sense that some of the president's antics and/or those of the Trump Administration have been... blatantly dumb ("It appears that [Sec. of State Tillerson] actually did call the president a 'fucking moron'").

So... there's that.

Would I recommend this book?

Would I recommend this book? Yes and no. It's a lot to fight through. I was attracted to it because I wanted the view of a career military officer who ran two of the most powerful IC organizations in the history of the modern world. In exchange for my attention, I've primarily received useful perspective on "problems" I've been working to understand and third-party assessments of national events I've seen or read about (complete with fact-checking — recall the end notes).

As I said at the start, people don't eat bran because it's tasty; they eat it because it's good for them. In my view, Gen. Hayden's book is good for us to read because it's good for us to understand the impact the Trump Administration and recent events have had on the IC, and on the public the IC so tirelessly serves.

Image credit: Penguin Press

If I had to characterize Gen. Hayden's The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies as a food, or a food component, I'd say it's bran: it's meant for more mature audiences, and you don't eat it because it's tasty; you eat it because it's good for you.

Also, too much at once can become hard to chew.

I should have guessed that a book written by a Four-Star General would contain heavy doses of history. Gen. Hayden shows he was an astute student of the same: In his description of different administrations he served, he offers four paradigms of American presidency, as framed by Walter Russell Mead in his 2001 book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. Gen. Hayden bins President Trump squarely in the camp of President Andrew Jackson and those of his ilk: largely uninterested in foreign affairs until his ire is provoked, and with a foreign policy generally informed by intense patriotism. I find the comparison helpful, because it offers a lens through which the Trump Administration's actions may be viewed — put another way, it offers some kind of paradigm for the behavior, which is better than simply wondering what the Hell will happen next.

Image credit: Penguin Press

Today I picked Gen. Hayden's The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies as my next read.

General Hayden is the former Director of the National Security Agency and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Yes I want to read what he has to say. Here's what The Washington Post thought.

Every so often one gets lucky enough to find someone to align with — someone to look up to. I met such a person a few years ago. I reported to him directly in a position with a firm based on the east coast. I found him to have a strong moral compass, a love for engineering, and an unmatched drive for excellence in our solutions and our people. The company fell on troubled times and I don't work for him anymore, but I feel it's important for me to stay in contact with him. It doesn't have anything to do with employment — it's about remaining connected to a leader I admire.

In A Higher Loyalty, Former FBI Director James Comey writes about the stuff we saw in the news — the Clinton email scandal, the Russia investigation, his relationship with President Trump — the headliines that made him a household name. But his perspective on these events isn't as important as how he came to make the decisions he made. For that, Comey prepares us by offering images of formative moments from his youth and early career, describing people who inspired him and events that terrified and taught him; the history that provided him the tools to evaluate and make the difficult choices in the best interest of the FBI and the American public it serves.

The attentive reader will come to understand Mr. Comey as a private man who dedicated himself to honesty and truth, and in turn, that dedication helped him navigate what I consider as the most politically turbulent time for our nation this century. This book is not just about current events; it's about what good leadership looks like, and what poor leadership looks like. It's about the difference between loyalty to one's values and mission and loyalty to a person. And over the course of the book, one will come to understand how badly we need people like Mr. Comey at the highest levels of our federal government.

And I feel connected to another leader I admire.

We finally have answers. Perhaps more importantly, something about the Trump Administration finally makes sense. Credit Michael Wolff, author of Fire and Fury, which is a peek under the short skirt of the Trump Administration (yes, I tweaked the metaphor on purpose). Wolff's work provided so many insights and answers to questions I can't be the only one asking.

(I devoured this book in three days — that has to be a personal record.)

Wolff has been doing the talk show circuit for at least a week now. I ordered my copy of the book based on Wolff's Today Show interview and a Newsweek article — a "top ten list" of topics covered in Fire and Fury's salacious 321 pages. ¹ 

Fire and Fury

Fire and Fury delivered for me the "ground zero" answer to all of my questions about the Trump Administration over the past year: Winning the race was never Donald Trump's intention.

With Wolff's help, I've been led to conclude, by piecing together content from the book with other news I'd picked up over the past year and a half, that the whole thing was about developing a message that Trump could later broadcast over a media company. In short, Trump's candidacy was step one of a two step program: (1) create a message (2) make a network to broadcast that message. The program was taken straight from the playbook of Roger Ailes, the disgraced former Chairman and CEO of Fox News who resigned in mid-2016 amid sexual harrassment allegations. Both Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, Wolff explains, are held in very high esteem at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — though for Murdoch, the feeling was not entirely mutual.

Trump's longtime friend Roger Ailes liked to say that if you wanted a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future.

He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunties. "This is bigger than I ever dreamed of," he told Ailes in a conversation a week before the election. "I don't think about losing because it isn't losing. We've totally won."

The answer to just about any question one might ask about the Trump Administration can be traced back to that paragraph. Example: Why, particularly early on, why did the Trump Administration appear to be in complete disarray? Because they made no plans for becoming an actual Administration. Team Trump planned to lose the election. Another example: Why did Candidate Trump refuse to release his tax returns to the public? Because Team Trump planned to lose the election. Then-candidate Trump knew the entire furor would become entirely moot after Election Day.

Fire and Fury does three things very well: It offers insight into our enigmatic 45th president (and how the White House staff learned to shape information for him); it offers insight into the events that shaped the first year of the Trump Administration, from catalysts to reactions; and, perhaps most importantly, it offers insight into different factions within the White House who were constantly fighting for the president's favor.

Three Factions

To the final point above: three parties with different interests were all working feverishly to further their own agendas through President Trump: Steve Bannon, who was advocating for the no-quarter nationalist approach (Wolff refers to this as "Trumpism-Bannonism": an "iron-fisted isolationism"); Reince Priebus, who was working to further the interests of the Republican Party; and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who were pushing hard against Bannon for moderation, pushing for causes Bannon considered "off-message," and to generally mold 45 into a more presidential image.

As the events of 2017 unfolded, Wolff gave us the three sides to every story — including how each side tailored their messages, and the players each recruited to bend the president's ear and hold his attention enough to communicate it (for example, Camp Kushner was using Joe Scarborough of Fox Network's Morning Joe, playing to the president's addiction to television). And it seems every topic was a battle; every day, a grueling war for virtual control of the United States and its place in the world.

Numerous newsworthy events were engineered by at least one of the three camps, Wolff explains. For example, the firing of FBI Director James Comey was engineered by Kushner, because Kushner's family business dealings were getting exposed as part of the Russia investigation. (Interestingly, Bannon urged against firing Comey because news coverage of the investigation would instantly become front-page material — but also perhaps partly because he'd had his fill of Kushner.) Kushner then went to great lengths to deny any involvement in the decision.

Wolff walks us through many such events — using the introduction of each actor and how they came to participate to set the stage, followed by the event and the reactions by each camp. Many of these events involving a given camp only became events because word was leaked by one of the other camps — for example, much of the trouble Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were in was preceded by some action from an agent of either Bannon or Priebus — or both.

At times the book reads like the latest installment of the Star Wars saga (*cue John Williams*):

If no text shows after a few seconds, right-click on the black field and refresh.

Credit: css-tricks.com

Pity the Fool

In truth, Fire and Fury has ultimately made me pity our president. I'm angry that he ran in the first place (because he had no intention of winning); he should have found some other way to craft a message without making a promise he never intended to keep. I'm angry about the things he did under Bannon's influence, and I'm angry about the hijinx the Republicans have been doing in Congress (like voting on important bills the Democrats had no chance to read). But ultimately, the book has shown that Mr. Trump has been a pawn the entire time. Everyone around him learned the one thing he craved most was adoration, and so all used flattery to their advantage to get him to do what they wanted.

Looking to the Future

Look where this could leave us. We have a president that entered the race for himself — not for the good of the country. All he wanted was a media presence. Now he's the Commander in Chief, and, as Wolff helps illustrate, the issues facing the country don't interest him. Hell, reading doesn't interest him. The ONE thing in those 321 pages he really seemed to give any kind of a damn about was the use of chemical weapons in Syria — and only because Ivanka was smart enough to put together a CARE-esque preso and made him watch it. ²  As was stated in the book, "He doesn't give a fuck." (That's a quote — not my words.) He doesn't care about you. Or your family. Or your health care. Or your taxes. He cares about himself, television, — his image on television — golf, and cheeseburgers. Everything else is a pain in his ass (which I think is also at least close to another quote from the book).

I encourage all Americans to read this book — but particularly those who voted for President Trump. Read it and really think about how our political process should function — and what you can do to prevent this from happening again in the future.